D&D 5E Should we add to the STR skills with combat function?

[Li Shenron]

I mean that STR already has plenty of combat uses, and doesn't need further double-dipping. Bounded accuracy, remember? Keeping stacking modifiers from growing out of control?

Yes, this is why anyway I expressed some concerns over that bonus growing to +6.

IIRC in our old 3e house rule, the Grapple skill bonus actually replaced the BAB in grapple checks. It was just a way to make pay for it, so that not every fighter type would be good at it.

I just don't want grappling to be again the main trick against spellcasters. First I'd check that, if there is a problem with that, then I would consider a lower starting point for attempting a grapple or something like that. Or it could be fixed by changing the opposed Str/Dex check with a Str/Dex ST instead, so that some defenders also get the bonus. Maybe also add back an Escape Artist skill.

But in general, the current skill list is quite short so I'm in favor of adding more, but of course only if it doesn't break the system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or it could be fixed by changing the opposed Str/Dex check with a Str/Dex ST instead, so that some defenders also get the bonus. Maybe also add back an Escape Artist skill.

That some defenders should also get to add their proficiency bonus to defend against Grapple and Knock Down is a good point. Which to my thinking is another reason not to align Skills directly to specific scores. That way if you have the Martial Arts skill... you can add that bonus to either your STR or DEX checks to defend against an opponent who attempts a Grapple or Knock Down.

As far as your concern about Grapple taking out spellcasters too easily... I really can't speak on that one way or another because I don't recall any of my games ever actually having Grapple being used (let alone used against a spellcaster to take him out of a fight.) So I dunno how much of an issue it actually is... I'll leave it to your thoughts on the matter since it seems you've had experience with that situation much more than I have.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that's a great idea. Those strength contests tend to be underused in my games because it always seems like hitting them is a better choice, except in rare circumstances where you really need to capture someone alive. But, with the proficiency bonus, at least people might reconsider that. I like it!

 

[Rune]

Two things:

1: I can easily non-strength-based athletics checks happening with some frequency (dex for precision or reflexive athletics, con for endurance, int for tactical and strategic athletic maneuvering, wis for patience in timing, and cha for sportsmanship and showmanship. So that would seem to support your point, except...

2: Athletics checks (especially str-based, like running, jumping, and climbing) are already combat checks. And if you don't see them in your combats often, hand out advantage a little more freely. Including (and especially) to your NPCs.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Instead of creating a new skill, seems like it'd be easier to just allow athletics proficiency to be added to grapple and knockdown checks. If you're an athlete you're better at tackling. Makes sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Instead of creating a new skill, seems like it'd be easier to just allow athletics proficiency to be added to grapple and knockdown checks. If you're an athlete you're better at tackling. Makes sense to me.

I don't agree with this. The whole point in having Skills is to have a specific specialization in some part of your ability checks. If you have only a single Athletics skill that covers every single aspect of possible STR-related checks... you no longer are making ability score checks... you're making Athletics checks. You're basically saying you are specialized in Strength. And if you're going to do that... why even bother having an Athletics skill at all? Just tell people you can specialize in Strength as a whole and have it cover everything.

Every strong person is not equally good at climbing *and* jumping *and* swimming *and* wrestling *and* tripping. If they were, we wouldn't bother with a skill system at all. So the idea is to break the possible uses of STR checks down into component parts to represent different aspects of STR... the same way having a high DEX doesn't mean you are all equally good at sleight of hand *and* stealth *and* acrobatics. You have chosen what path you have focused yourself on.

 

[3catcircus]

I say go all the way. Dump level-based attack bonuses completely and make combat a skill instead.

 

[r0gershrubber]

I like this idea, and I would add that since feats are technically optional, we should not rely upon them to scale the effectiveness of grappling/etc.

My understanding of the current incarnation of the rules is that proficiency with Athletics provides a bonus to some strength checks (e.g. jumping) but not others (e.g. bending bars). One issue with this arrangement is that as characters level their Athletics ability will improve more quickly than their non-Athletics ability, which means that level-appropriate DCs for those checks will eventually be quite different.

In other words, a DC 20 Strength check will be about as difficult as a DC 20 Athletics check at level 1, but by level 20 a DC 30 Strength check will be much more difficult than a DC 30 Athletics check.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Now that everything uses the same proficiency mechanic, I don't consider skills and weapon proficiencies to be different things. That said, I think it's a great idea for characters to be able to become proficient in grapple and knock down, either individually or through a skill that encompasses them.

 

[Mistwell]

I say go all the way. Dump level-based attack bonuses completely and make combat a skill instead.

Uh, isn't that what they did? It's not called combat skill, it's called proficiency bonus (for tools, weapons, and skills), but that's what they did mang.